Me I look at the history of the 20th century, Anslinger (sp?) just built himself a little bureaucratic kingdom, and needed a dragon to slay. Using racial prejudice against Mexican Americans and that evil reefer, they taxed it but was a Catch 22, you had to have the reefer to get the stamp and to have it without the stamp was illegal.
Our drug laws are borne of stupidity and political blackmailing bureaucratics.
Mark (sixoneeight) = 618
"can't . . .tax it. So it is illegal"
Indeed, when England decided to do something about the opiates and MJ problems they turned it over to their equivalent of our Department of Health
We (U.S.A.) decided to tax it and that is why the Department of the Treasury is deeply involved in our "War on Drugs (& Terrorism)"
Your average Police Department spends a good deal of its budget maintaining a "drug task force" by some name or another and regularly confiscates goods and cash without probable cause by suggesting that the goods or cash is somehow connected to criminal activity.
No Knock searches by black clad masked men in the middle of the night (or early morning hours) have become the norm in America. Ostensibly to protect us from druggies.
More of our rights went out the window with the Patriot Acts. Ostensibly to protect us from the blowback we get by supporting a state of Israel in order to keep a presence in the Oil-rich Middle East.
Solution: Smoke a little pot each day and fahgetddaboutit.
The only problem I see with this is that our society is (unfortunately) not "wired" for this kind of attitude towards holding people accountable for consequences of their own actions. Sure, drug legalization could occur with this expressed intention and maybe for a few years would work that way. However, the responsibility part will be slowly eroded. It will start with good intentions, "What about the *children*, we can't hold
*them* responsible for their irresponsible parents' actions, can we?" So we'll get some form of parental aid for children of parents of addicts. Then, "but they can't afford rehab, we have to *help* so they can re-establish their lives", and voila!, another $100B + government program will be born.As a strict constructionist, the approach to drug enforcement bothers me. The abuses of constitutional freedoms in pursuit of this enforcement are frightening and, IMHO, are what civil libertarians should be focusing on rather than the actions being taken to protect our country from the terrorists who would kill or maim as many as possible if given the opportunity. At the same time, having seen the devastation drug addiction causes, simple legalization is also frightening. Trying to draw a moral equivalence between drugs and alcohol is nonsense. One can partake of alcohol with no intent of getting drunk -- the same is not true of any use of drugs. In addition, while it is true that some are genetically pre-disposed toward alcoholism, there are drugs for which addiction following only a few "doses" is a near certainty for anyone trying those substance, thus making them readily available is likely to ensnare many who only experiment with them once.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Yep. But let's just make one more drug legal, and then one more....
That'll allow us to concentrate on outlawing the important stuff like French fries and preservatives....
What do you think, call off the war on drugs and concentrate on something winnable, like the war on poverty?
As I mentioned in another part of this thread; I find the attempt to draw a moral equivalence between alcohol and drugs, including mirijuana puzzling. One can partake in alcohol without becoming drunk (i.e, wine with dinner, etc); there is no equivalent for drug use. One uses those substances for the sole express purpose of altering one's conscious state.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
LOL
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Sort of like telling us how many homeless or how many without medical insurance to jolt us into action? Or one of my favorites, the cost per day per inmate. The cost difference between one and two is the price of the chow. In our case, it was about six bucks. The twenty-first was another matter, because that required another body on shift.
Exactly. Shrinks can sign off that someone is cured or rehabilitated without a care in the world. If the shrinks had to do more than file the paperwork afterwards I'm betting that the number of child molestors and rapists that were cured would be reduced.
Get a real newsreader and use a killfile.
Mark (sixoneeight) = 618
That's fair enough. But when you add the 'abuse' factor, the parallel reappears.
If the shrinks won't cooperate, I think it's legitimate to wonder why... If the guy is truly rehabilitated, there's nothing to fear from him, right?
I'm a parent myself, and I can only begin to imagine what kind of pain you must still be going through. I'm truly sorry for your loss, and for any additional pain that my post inadvertently caused you.
Just the same -- the thread *is* clearly labelled as off-topic, and surely there had been enough posts here, prior to the one that upset you, to have alerted you to the fact that the subject matter was not something you would find pleasant reading.
This, of course, would only apply to shrinks who run Bed & Breakfast establishments. Then again, maybe the fear isn't about physical harm, but the smell of the rehabilitated armpits? Maybe the shrink has a dog that doesn't like strangers? Aside from 'lack-of-fear', I can think of many reasons why a shrink wouldn't want any guests. The whole idea is silly.
OK, then, release him into the shrink's neighborhood, instead of his household. Same principle applies, from my POV.
Perhaps, but IMO it's no sillier than having the shrinks decide who gets released, and who stays inside -- there's plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that they often get the decision wrong. (Google "Jack Abbott" for one particularly ugly example.)
Maybe not so silly. The point is less about having the reformed perp actually living inside your house, but very close by and putting the shrinks family at risk if the perp isn't so rehabilitated.
Armpits and dogs indeed. Who's being silly?
It's very easy for the shrink to decide to let the perp go when the individual in question won't be living anywhere near the good doctor.
Since they can't beat them, they ought to tax them. There's a lotta gold in them thar hills!
Tax Stamp or not, it was still illegal to posess marijuana even if you had the stamp.
I actually have some, bought as collectable after the tax acts demise.
Mark (sixoneeight) = 618
These restrictions are not about doing anything about the drug problem. They are about looking like they are doing something about the drug problem. Actually doing something would be far more difficult and relatively few people would know about it as it does not effect the majority. If they put restrictions on products, it will do little to nothing about the problem but it will appear they are working hard at it. Appearances are everything.
experience playing the following different types of music
LOL.. so true. I have observed similar things. Observed.
My granma's knitting club - brandy soaked raisins. They weren't 'drinking', but they sure got loud after a couple of mason jars of the stuff. Those old bitties, singing, are amongst some of my favourite childhood memories.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.